Saturday, May 21, 2011

WHAT REALLY PISSES OFF AN UNTALENTED STARLET MORE FAMOUS FOR SHOWING THEIR BOOBS THAN FOR EVER ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING?

BEING CALLED OUT BY AN ACTUAL ICONIC STAR.

AND CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS SPITTING MAD AND PLOTTING A NIP SLIP TO CHANGE THE HEADLINES NOW THAT HIS AMATEUR HOUR IS BEING CALLED OUT BY THE TWICE OSCAR NOMINATED ACTOR, WRITER AND DIRECTOR PETER FONDA.

"I sent an email to President Obama saying, You are a f****** traitor. using those words... You're a traitor, you allowed foreign boots on our soil telling our military, in this case the coastguard, what they can and could not do, and telling us, the citizens of the United States, what we could or could not do".

OF BRITISH PETROLEUM, PETER FONDA SAID, "A BUNCH OF BRITS -- I THOUGHT WE KICKED THEM OUT A LONG TIME AGO. T HEY TRIED TO GET BACK IN IN 1812, BUT THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT."

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O SAID, "AS A PROUD PRODUCT OF THE INDONESIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM, I DO NOT INTEND TO TAKE 'HISTORY' LESSONS FROM ANY HALF-RATE AMERICAN WHO CAN ONLY TRACE THEIR ROOTS BACK TO THE MAYFLOWER AND BEYOND. I KNOW AMERICAN HISTORY. IN 2008, I VISITED 57 OF THE COUNTRY'S STATES. DON'T YOU TRY TO TELL ME ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY!"

WITH THAT BARRY O SNAPPED SHUT HIS COMPACT, ADJUSTED HIS RACK WITH BOTH HANDS, AND STORMED OFF TO THE LADIES ROOM.

But, first, let me tell you about COUNTDOWN FRIDAY – today – Tahrir, Baghdad welcomes hundreds of its old residents who visit it every Friday and they held a public auction for Haliki and his goons – the highest bid was a quarter of an Iraqi Dinar! People were obstructed by goons dressed in black carrying clubs and donkey sticks who tried to keep people away from the square, in particular on the western side of the square. A number of protestors were badly beaten up and verbally abused. Normal! We were told by protestors, live on air, that security forces were out in strength and some areas in Baghdad a curfew had been imposed. But the usual colourful crowd was in Tahrir, singing and reading poetry with the sad view of women with disappeared relatives holding their relatives' photographs. They had displayed beautifully amusing caricatures of Maliki! They all stated that it is not Maliki's or the parliament's decision to extend or not, the stay of the American Occupation – that it is the decision of the people and that they wanted the immediate departure of the American and the Iranian Occupations. Of course, they all sang our favourite song of Maliki being a liar and a thief. This song is a must as well as many others which have been composed since the Revolution began. A lady in Tahrir said that she had 5 brothers who had disappeared one of which was 13 years old since 2005, another, a son who was 15 years old and others and others…. I wonder what country Mr. Obama was talking about in his speech – and had he not intended to have his troops stay and had he not been sure that they were staying I wonder why he stated that Iraq was still under emergency rule for another year and why he stated that our funds are under protection for another year!!!!! At any rate, we know that the Americans and Maliki have already signed up. 5 bases at a cost of USD 400 billion – bases that are cities, totally self-sustaining and the largest embassy in the world – could it be called an embassy I wonder – with 20,000 employees as well as 18,000 mercenaries to protect it, or are they? Could they not be troops dressed in different uniforms???? With 2 official consulates and 2 regional offices as well as agents in every single Iraqi institution no matter how distant and unimportant as well as advisors. By the way, the British who announced a couple of days ago that that was their last day in Iraq are lying of course because there are and will be 5,000 British "advisors" remaining in Iraq! Just as there will be around 20,000 American advisors!Don't imagine that I am one of the few people who know these facts – Most of the Iraqi people know – go out amongst the simplest in out-lying areas in the country and you will be told this by the simplest farmer!Not that I have anytime for Mr. Obama and his lies, really – we really don't care about him or about what he has to say - we neither care nor are we impressed…. Lies, Lies, and more Lies!!I will only say one thing to Mr. Obama and the powers that be in America, watch out for the Iraqis. You really don't know what we can do when we get angry and just wait for July and August!I wonder what sort of democratic process he is speaking about and just as Haliki speaks about another planet so does Mr. Obama!

Dar Addustour notes approximately 2,000 protested in Mosul, carrying banners and chanting with demands including the departure of Nouri al-Maliki. Aswat al-Iraq notes that there were "hundreds" participating and that the demands also including that "the Iraqi government stop paying compensations to the Kuwaiti government. The compensations were imposed on Iraq after Gulf War I in 1991 by the UN Security Council."

Today Al Mada notes MP Sabah al-Saadi stating that it is highly likely that the agreement between the US and Iraq will be extended to keep approximately 20,000 US forces on the ground in Iraq past 2011. al-Saadi notes that 20,000 is the number being tossed around by the US in discussions with Iraqi officials. Another Al Mada article (also published today) on the issue notes that Robert Gates is pitching US troops as a way to "protect" the Iraqi government from popular protests. Gates appears to be on a mission to demonstrate just how hollow Barack's words were in yesterday's speech. In another article published today, Al Mada notes that Hezbollah Brigades have issued a statement that if the US stays in Iraq, armed violence will take place and the foreign occupiers will be expelled. Dar Addustour reported yesterday that Moqtada al-Sadr is now insisting that troops from "Arab and other foreign countries" be used to help stabilize Iraq in 2012. The other, right? Just sticks out there, doesn't it? Sounds like he means Iran, doesn't it? Wonder why that is? But he does realize the security situation talking point needs to be combatted so he runs with "our neighbors will help our defense." Fadel-Al Nashmi (Niqash) observes:

On one hand, locals have heard many Iraqi politicians say they don't want to see giant Hummers (American military vehicles) racing around their countryside anymore. On the other, they hear rumours, some of which come from inside the country's political elite, that there is a genuine need to keep US troops in Iraq for the sake of security, in a fledgling democracy not yet familiar with stability. Yet failure to declare an opinion on this issue remains the most common attitude in Iraq's political circles presently. During his most recent press conference, a journalist asked al-Maliki where he stood on the matter. Without any trace of irony, the prime minster replied: "There are governments and many other protagonists who want to know where I stand on this. Why would I tell you?" Nonetheless Azza Shabandar, an MP for the State of Law coalition, the second largest coalition in the Iraqi parliament which is headed by al-Maliki, told NIQASH that, "I can say with certainty that 80 to 90 percent of the political parties have a genuine desire to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq."

Al Rafidayn reports that a spokesperson for the Iraqiya (Ayad Allawi heads this political slate) stated yesterday that an agreement had been reached with State Of Law (Nouri heads this political slate) to move forward -- by submitting to Parliament -- drafts on the National Council for Strategic Policies and possibly move towards nominating a President of the National Council. What is that? March 7, 2010, Iraq held national elections. Allawi's slate came in first place. Slightly behind -- but behind nonetheless -- was Nouri's slate. Nouri refused to step aside or follow the Constitution. (The Constitution dictated that Allawi would have first short at forming a government -- that would have made him prime minister-designate -- and if he failed to do so after 30 days, the Parliament would pick a new prime minister-designate.) Nouri stubborness and crooked ways helped create the political stalemate that extended over nine months. Leaders from the National Alliance, State Of Law, Iraqiya, the two main KRG political parties and others gathered in Erbil in an attempt to end the stalemate. The deal they formed is known as the Erbil Agreement. It was formalized, it was signed, it should have been a done deal.

Immediately, it was announced the stalemate was over and, November 10th, efforts were made to move forward in Parliament. Nouri was named prime minister-designate (he would be named much later by Jalal Talabani in an abuse of power intended to give Nouri more than 30 days to form a Cabinet), there were efforts to clear up the names of several Iraqiya politicians who'd been falsely accused (by Nouri's henchman) of being Ba'athists. But Ayad Allawi and some others in Iraqiya walked out of that November 10th Parliament session. Why? He wanted the National Council to be voted on so it could become official. The Erbil Agreement made the National Council a board of review that had independence and true powers. And the deal was that Allawi would head it. Allawi sensed in the November 10th meeting that he was being played.

He was being played. And the National Council never did get created. All this time later. The rumors Al Rafidayn reported on could, if true, actually indicate some progress or progression in Iraq. However, yesterday evening, Aswat al-Iraq reported that Maysoun al-Damalouji, Iraqiya's spokesperson, was stating that no agreement had been reached. Aswat al-Iraq identifies Iraqiya's Shakir Kattab as the original source for the rumor and notes that the National Coalition denied any agreement had been reached. As Al Mada notes, this conflict has now raged for over a year and a half and, as it continues, there is a fear that this impass will become a norm in Iraqi politics.

That is one obstacle. February 3rd, the US Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing and the Chair, Carl Levin, noted obstacles in his opening remarks.

Chair Carl Levin: Last December, after eight months of discussions, Iraq's political leaders agreed to form a national unity government. But the agreement was only partial. Iraq still awaits the nominations by Prime Minister al-Maliki to the key cabinet positions of Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior and Minister of National Security as well as the resolution of issues relating to the powers of the National Council on Higher Priorities, to be headed by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. The pressure on the Iraqi government to fill in these large gaps must continue.

The National Council we've noted above. Iraq still has no Minister of Defense, no Minister of Interior and no Minister of National Security. It's three months since Senator Levin made those remarks. It's over five months since Nouri became prime minister and over six since he became prime minister-designate. (Per the Constitution, he should not have moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister unless he filled all the posts in his Cabinet. Per the Constitution, if he couldn't do that in 30 days -- and he couldn't -- then Parliament was supposed to select a new prime minister-designate and give them a chance to put together a Cabinet.

Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -- whether it's a big news organization or a lone blogger. In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.BIG WORDS FROM THE ASSHOLE WHO TRIED TO BULLY THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE WHEN THEY RELEASED FOOTAGE OF HIM BEING PROTESTED.

"I saw a lot of dead bodies, burned dead bodies." Yahya Barzanji (AP) quotes eye witness Adnan Karim stating. Asso Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) quote police officer Fadl Ahmed stating, "I saw one of my officers. I had said good morning to him by the lot and when I came back, he was dead." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports Kirkuk was slammed with bombings today which resulted in at least 27 deaths with sixty-nine more left injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy News) breaks it down, "Two coordinated explosions targeted the police headquarters in Kirkuk, 140 miles north of Baghdad, killing 25 people and wounding at least 65, security officials said. A third blast struck the motorcade of the city's chief counterterrorism official, killing four security guards and seriously wounding nine others." Fang Yang (Xinhua) adds, "The attack took place in the morning rush hours when a sticky bomb attached to a car detonated at a parking lot in front of a police headquarters in central the city of Kirkuk, some 250 km north of Baghdad, the source said. Afterwards, a booby-trapped car parked at the scene went off as Iraqi security forces and dozens of onlookers gathered at the site of the first blast, the source added." Mustafa Mahmoud (Reuters) quotes police officer Talib Jabar, "I was on my way into police headquarters and suddenly I fell to the ground, but did not feel anything because I lost consciousness. When I woke up I found myself in the hospital with doctors around me and I was bleeding everywhere."

KUNA cites Kirkuk's Health Director Seddiq Abdulrasoul for the death toll of 30 and the for "no less than 90 others injured." The BBC notes that those harmed included many police officers. Vatican Radio observes, "One of the bombs targeted the head of the city's anti-terrorism unit. He survived unharmed, but four of his body guards were killed." ITN adds, "Television video has shown the twisted, burned wreckage of several cars in the street as police officers picked through the debris." Jack Healy (New York Times) recaps, "The attackers used a now-familiar tactic, detonating a small improvised explosive device attached to a sedan in a parking lot outside the local police headquarters. After police rushed to the scene, a larger car bomb went off, killing 17 officers and 11 civilians." Tim Craig and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) provide this context, "The attack came a day after Iraqi security officials announced they had captured several local leaders with suspected ties to al Qaeda. It was one of several in Iraq Thursday, most of which appeared aimed at police officers."

The oil-rich region of Kirkuk is disputed with the KRG and the central 'government' out of Baghdad both insisting they have dibs on the region. Under Saddam Hussein, Kurds were expelled from the region and, since the start of the Iraq War, the KRG has made efforts to ship Kurds into the region. Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) explains, "Kirkuk is a historically Kurdish city which was excluded by Saddam Hussein from the self-governing Kurdish autonomous region, leading to the departure of many of its inhabitants. But since the fall of Saddam many Kurds have returned and are agitating for its inclusion in the autonomous [KRG] region." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) provides this walk through, "Kirkuk is quintessentially the disputed city: the Kurds see it as their internal homeland, they believe it has always belonged to them even though it is under Iraqi goernment control. The city is claimed by Arabs as well, of course, as well as Turkmen who are a substantial population there. On top of all that it is the centre of the oilfields -- it has enormous oil reserves and it has been fought over for decades." Iraq's Constitution (passed and ratified in 2005) explained how the issue would be settled.

Article 140

First: The executive authority shall undertake the necessary steps to complete the implementation of the requirements of all subparagraphs of Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law.

Second: The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007.

The Iraqi Constitution can be found [PDF format warning] here at the UN webpages.

By 2007, a census and referendum would have taken place -- leaving the issue up to the inhabits of the region. But, check the calendars, it's 2011, four years after the referendum was supposed to take place and it never has. Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to have overseen it but he was either unable or unwilling to do so. He continually pushed the date back. It was most recently supposed to have taken place in December of 2010. He made that promise while seeking to continue as prime minister. In November, he became prime minister-designate. Almost immediately, he then cancelled the scheduled census.

So the tensions continue to thrive and build in Kirkuk. As a result, certain 'team-building' exercises take place. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) observes, "Currently, US forces participate in confidence-building tripartite patrols and checkpoints with central government forces and Kurdish security foficers in Kirkuk and across northern Iraq." Asso Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) add, "Despite eight years of American-backed efforts to mediate a solution, the sides remain at loggerheads." But it was seven years, not eight. See Chris Hill blew off the issue. He did so at his Senate confirmation hearing, he did so as US Ambassador to Iraq and he did so after he was finally replaced. (Did anyone ever get shown the door as quickly as Hill?) While ambassador, he showed up on PRI and NPR radio programs insisting that the Kirkuk issue was minor (echoing his words at his confirmation hearing). Even earlier this month, in Denver, in a public 'conversation' (Hill can't debate -- big surprise) with Bruce Hoffman, Hill was still down playing the issue of Kirkuk. (This is in direct contrast to the US Ambassador to Iraq who preceeded him, Ryan Crocker, and the one who followed him, James Jeffrey. Jeffrey is the current ambassador.) Sky News states, "US officials have persistently said that the unresolved row [over Kirkuk] is one of the biggest threats to Iraq's future stability." And they're correct if you leave out Chris Hill. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) sums up, "Violence and ethnic tensions are on the rise there. In recent months, after protests over problems with electricity and other public services, the governor and the head of the provincial council resigned and were replaced by a Kurd and a Turkomen, whiich Kirkuk's Arabs considered a slight."

In other violence today, Reuters notes a Qaiyara roadside bombing claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 cleric and left two other people injured and a Baquba car bombing which claimed two lives and left ten people injured.

Starting in DC where Senator Patty Murray declared this morning, "I was shocked to hear of a veteran who, after receiving advanced prosthetics, from the military went to the VA to have them adjusted and maintained; however, when the veteran got to the prosethic clinic, the VA employees were fascinated by his device, having never seen that model before. More interested, he said, in examining it than him. With the rates of injuries requiring amputation rising, we need to have the best possible care. As of early March 2011, 409 Operation Enduring Freedom service members have needed limbs amputated." Operation Enduring Freedom is the Afghanistan War. The situation is serious and has been for years now. In 2004, Raja Mishra (Boston Globe) was reporting, "US troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars". In it's Fall 2006 issue, Clamor magazine noted "that since the onset of the Iraq invasion and occupation upwards of 400 U.S. soldiers have come back needing amputations and prosthetics (30 percent have multiple amputations)."

Senator Murray was addressing the issue this morning as Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and tying it into other issues arising as service members become veterans and move from DoD to the VA. "It is imperative," Murray stated in her opening remarks," that those individuals receive a truly seamless handoff to VA medical care so a provider there can manage those medications after the individual has left the service. If that link is not made, those new veterans become far more likely to abuse drugs, become homeless or commit suicide." This morning's hearing was the first of a two-part hearing. Next week, the scheduled hearing's focus will be on veterans shairng their experiences in the care system. Today's hearing focused on the care giving and heared from VA's Deputy Secretary W. Scott Gould and DoD's Deputy Secretary William Lynn.

Chair Murray outlined the conflicts and the Ranking Member noted the time since a scandal lit a fire -- at least temporarily -- and put a strong focus on meeting the needs of veterans and those serving.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: It has now been four years since the issues at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] came to light and I cannot help but wonder if what we have done is to just create more bureacracy? One are that was implemented at the suggestion of the Dole - Shalala Commission is the Federal Recovery Coordination Program. As this program was visualized, the government would hire Federal Recovery Coordinators to help veterans and their families navigate all of the benefits the service members were entitled to throughout the entire federal governement. Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of an idea that look great on paper but has not yet lived up to expectations. A recent GAO report on the program shows that there are still problems with the two agencies working together.

"Whether you're talking about employment or medical records or mental health counseling -- the list goes on and on -- we have an obligation," Senator Jon Tester added.

The opening statements (written) by the two witnesses contained some information worth noting. Before we get to that, at the request of a veteran present, we're noting that the VA's Gould felt the need to note how many veterans were enrolled in the GI Bill program. The problem was not enrolling, the problem was getting them their checks. And if VA is doing that currently (they apparently are), they should have noted it. But that defect is minor compared to William Lynn's problem.

We've already noted her but let's do it one more time: Senator Patty Murray.

She is the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee. I would have thought the name "Patty" -- as opposed to "Paddy" -- would have clued people in as to the senator's gender. Not only does Lynn's written statement end, "Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support . . .," but he also read that statement out loud -- without glasses so he can see what's immediately in front of him but he appears to have long range vision issues since he was addressing Patty Murray and didn't grasp the "she." If you're going to use the term "chairman" (we don't, we use the gender neutral "chair"), it is either "Mister Chairman" or "Madam Chairman." It is the latter when the chair is a woman. I cannot believe no one at the Defense Dept read over a DoD Deputy Secretary's prepared remarks before they were sent to the Committee.

From Gould's opening (prepared) remarks, we're going to note some date regarding the VA's efforts with preventing suicides. 1-800-273-8255 is the number for the suicide prevention hotline and veterans then press 1. Gould noted the call center started July 2007 and has:

* Received over 400,000 calls;

* Initiated over 14,000 rescues;

* Referred over 53,000 veterans to local Suicide Prevention Coordinators for the same day or next day services

* Answered calls from over 5,000 Active Duty service members

* The call center is responsible for an average of 300 admissions a month to VA health care facilities and 150 new enrollments a month for VA health care.

The Veterans Service Chat started in July 2009 and it has "responded to over 15,000 chats."

In his opening remarks, Lynn stated, "Today's average IDES processing time is approximately 400 days from referral to post-separation, down from 540 days. The goal of IDES is to bring processing time down under 300 days and a tiger team is currently devising means to reduce this further" Murray refers to that statement at the start of the following hearing excerpt:

Chair Patty Murray: Secretary Lynn, you said that you want to go beyond the 300 days. We're not there yet. When do we expect to reach the goal of 300 days?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: The hope is to have the system which is now implemented in about half -- or for half the service members, half the 26,000. We hope to have that system fully implemented by the end of this-this year. So that's this fiscal year, so this fall.

Chair Patty Murray: And the 13,000 that Secretary Gould talked about that are in the new system?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: The 13 and then there's another 14,000 or so that are in the old system. We want to transition those over the next six or so months into the new system. What we found though, as we transitioned them in, what happens is that initially we actually get quite a lowering of the number of days frankly as we work through the more routine cases on-on the faster system. But then what we tend is that the time tends to come back up as we hit the harder backlog of cases. We need to work our way through that backlog which is what we're doing now with the existing cases so that data's actually gone up from where it was last fall. But we're working our way through that backlog. We're going to get our way through that backlog. We'll then have a system where we're taking members who enter -- who start in the new system and finish in the new system. At that point, we should hit that 295 days. I can't give you a date but I would say --

Chair Patty Murray: Are we talking months, years?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: I would say one-to-two years.

Chair Patty Murray: It will still take that long just to get people --

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: I would hope to do it in less -- do it in a shorter period of time, but I don't want to overpromise.

Chair Patty Murray: Is there anything this Committee can do to help expadite that because these are individuals who are living in limbo?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: Well I think both departments are committed to putting the resources to working through the backlogs and also, when you go to a new system, you create transition difficulties, you end up -- you need to surge resources to uh-uh-uh bases and facilities that are having problems. So we've -- we've committed with our VA partners to do that, it's going to take over $700 million over several years, so we're certainly looking -- We'll -- We'll present that in our budget. We'll certainly look for Congressional support to spend those resources.

Chair Patty Murray: Well this Committee needs to know honestly what the budget needs are because this is an obligation. We throw around 13,300 names, these are individuals who are living through this. And I'm very conscious of that. So I want to work with you but we need honest budgets from both of you about what that will take.

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: Absolutely.

Chair Patty Murray: I referenced something in my opening remarks I want to ask about. The Department of Defense provided this Committee with information on those service members who have died while they were enrolled in the Joint Disability Program. Of the 34 deaths, 13 were suicides or drug overdoses. That is very troubling information. That means that the rate of suicide for those that are going through this program is more than double the rate of the Army or of the Marine Corps. So I wanted to ask both of you what your respective departments are doing to address this troubling trend of suicides within the Joint Disability Program?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: Well should start agreeing with you, Chairman. The level of suicides is-is too high frankly. It's-it's too high Department wide. It's -- It is, as you note, higher, uh, with the people facing the challenges with disabilities -- It is -- Certainly they have a more challenging life, uh, uh and we need to do everything that we can to ease those challenges. Part of it is what we've just discussed to make that -- the disability transition -- that transition from DoD to VA as, uh, as expeditious and as congenial as poss -- as possible. It's what we're about. We also need to support family members of service members with disabilities, uh, strongly in terms of the care coordinators, in terms of wounded warrior transition units. We need to inform families what are the warning signs for suicide --

Chair Patty Murray: You're saying that we need to do that. Are we doing that?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: Yes, we are.

Chair Patty Murray: And how is that being done?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: Well -- uh -- The system -- the system's in place -- right now we work with care coordinators to-to alert them to the signs --

Chair Patty Murray: Actively? So everybody's invovled in this?

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: Actively. Everybody's involved in this. The warrior transition units are-are particularly trained to look for signs and they're trained in how to deal with those. We have a broader suicide prevention system. We pay particular attention to the families of service members because they are the most likely to, uh, be in a position to, uh, observe the early warning signs.

Chair Patty Murray: Something isn't working when we have this high number. So, you know, is it -- Can you give me ideas or even a commitment to go back and take a look at these numbers and really look at our outreach? What are we doing to help support our families? Is it over use of drugs? And come back to us because this is just unacceptable.

Deputy Secretary William Lynn: The numbers are too high and I'm happy to come back to you.

Chair Patty Murray: Secretary Gould, how about in the VA?

Deputy Secretary W. Scott Gould: . . . [inaudible, microphone wasn't on] that list of individuals from DoD who had committed suicide, it's heart rending. As Secretary Lynne just said, we are very focused on making sure this transition goes well. The individuals who -- thank you [to the man who adjusted his microphone -- the individuals who obviously are in that data are all on active duty and under the care of the DoD during that time. What we're trying to do is back stop in that process. VA is moving in parallel while those individuals are getting direct care and Bill has mentioned all of the various attritubes in that. When transition time does come, VA is very focused on making sure that we are working to prevent suicides, are conducting outreach and public education, we're amping up the resources that we bring to the fight on these issues, we're working to destigmatize it, we have a national crisis line that has served over 400,000 people, 14,000 saves since 2007. We're working very, very hard in a --

Chair Patty Murray: Now that's a result of the Joshua Omvib bill that we all worked to pass and support, I know that. But I just want to say, Secretary Gould, I'm -- I'm very concerned about the high number of suicides as I just said. But knowing that, we need to double our efforts with soldiers who are coming out of that program and are leaving.

Again, next Wednesday the Committee is scheduled to hear veterans share the reality of what is taking place from their experiences. Trina's senator on the Committee is Senator Scott Brown and Ava will cover Brown's contributions from today's hearing at Trina's site tonight.

In related news, Senator Murray's office notes:

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, applauded the announcement by the Department of Veterans of Affairs (VA) that they have started accepting and processing applications for the critical caregiver benefits program. After only a week and a half, the VA has assisted over 625 veterans, servicemembers, and caregivers apply to receive the new benefits provided under the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010. This program will provide much-needed and long-awaited financial and health care support to family members caring for severely wounded Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

"I'm very pleased that in the first week and a half of accepting applications

for this critical program, the VA has helped more than 625 veterans, servicemembers, and family caregivers start the process to receive new

benefits," said Chairman Murray. "Family members who have left behind

careers, lives, and responsibilites to care for their loved ones while they

recover from wounds they suffered defending our country can finally start

receiving the financial support and care they need and deserve."

Applications can be processed by telephone through Caregiver Support Line

at (855) 260-3274, in person at a VA medical Center with a Caregiver Support Coordinator by mail or online at www.caregiver.va.gov with the new Caregiver Application (VA Form 1010-CG). The website application also features a chat option that provides the Family Caregiver with a live representative to assist in completeing the application form.

As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Murray has led congressional efforts to push the VA to stop delaying the implementation of the caregivers' benefits programs and restore the eligibility criteria to the intend of Congress when the Caregivers program was passed last year. In fact, since the criteria limiting elegibility criteria to the intent of Congress when the Caregivers program was passed last year. In fact, since the criteria limiting eligibility for certain caregivers was announced by the VA in early February of this year Senator Murray has taken numerous steps to fight the decision including:

* Personally discussing the issue with President Obama in the Oval Office.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WENT TO MEMPHIS TO GIVE A COMMENCEMENT SPEECH TO HIGH SCHOOLERS. IN DOING SO, HE NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED THEM TO MISCONSTRUE THEIR OWN REALITY, HE TOLD HIS CREATION MYTH ONE MORE TIME.

BARRY O HAD AN INTELLIGENT MOTHER WHO ENSURED NOT JUST THAT HE STUDIED BUT THAT HE HAD KNOWLEDGE. THAT WAS A GIFT.

MIGHT SOME OF THE GRADUATES IN MEMPHIS HAVE ALSO BEEN BLESSED WITH SIMILAR GIFTS?

MIGHT THEY HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS -- INCLUDING PUBLIC HIGHWAYS -- WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO BECOME WHO THEY ARE?

AMERICA WORKS AS A NATION BECAUSE WE WORK AS A NATION. INSTEAD OF PROMOTING OUR COMMONALITIES, BARRY O WANTED TO PROMOTE EXCEPTIONALISM AND DENIAL -- HOW VERY REPUBLICAN OF HIM.FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Al Sabaah reports Iraq's political blocs have agreed to address whether or not to extend the US military presence in Iraq. This reconsideration is at Nouri's request. Wednesday, Nouri al-Maliki raised the issue and said if 70% of the political players agreed to extend the US presence, then that's what would happen. As we've repeatedly noted, that's not an impossible to reach number. The Kurds would want them to stay -- and our statement on that is backed up by Fars News which reports today, "The Kurdistan Patriotic Union issued a statement on Sunday, asking the US military troops to extend their mission in Iraq." That's roughly a third of the Parliament right there. Aswat al-Iraq adds, "Most of political blocs in Kurdistan believed that the US withdrawal at the end of this year is unsuitable that will tense the security situation in the country and return of violence. Spokesman of the National Kurdistan Party, headed by President Jalal Talabani, Azad Jindiyani said to Aswat al-Iraq that 'the US withdrawal is unsuitable due to the delay in building up Iraqi forces and the existence of political problems in the country'."

The uninformed and deluded will continue to insist that Moqtada al-Sadr has power (Shi'ite leader of the small Sadr bloc). Let's provide the context they keep missing by dropping back to two reports on Moqtada's last attempt to stop US troops from staying, November 22, 2008. This is from Mary Beth Sheridan's "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" (Washington Post):

Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush.The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement.The Sadrists do not appear to have the strength to derail the bilateral accord, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. The group has only 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament. Friday's protest drew thousands of people but was smaller than a massive demonstration held by Sadr loyalists in the same central Baghdad plaza in 2005.

In Firdos Square, protesters sat in rows of 50 stretching back more than half a mile. They filled Sadoun Street, beside the Palestine Hotel and in front of the colonnaded traffic circle where five years ago American troops pulled down the dictator's statue in scenes televised around the world.While the rally was billed as a cross-community effort, to be attended by Shiite and Sunni clerics, the vast majority of those in attendance were Sadrists. Many had come from Mr. Sadr's stronghold of Sadr City, and the chants the crowd took up were "Moktada, Moktada," "No, no to America," and "No, no to the agreement."Sadrist officials said they opposed the security agreement because they did not believe assurances that the Americans would ever leave. They depicted the pact as a successor to colonial-era treaties with Western powers in the last century that, they said, had "sold the Arab and the Muslim lands into occupation."

Despite the protests, days later the SOFA would pass Parliament. If Moqtada had the power so many are convinced he had, the SOFA never would have gone through. And, in 2008, Moqtada was a lot more influential than he is today when he's concerned that many of his lieutenants are eager to lead and not follow.

One US view for staying? Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes ("former executive officer to Gen. David Petraeus and a professor of military history at Ohio State University") Peter Mansoor stating, "Let's be clear -- the reason we should stay is to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other, particularly the Kurds and the Arabs. We can couch it in whatever terms we want to but . . . they need us to protect them from themselves." To be clear, this site has always supported, and continues to, immediate and full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The US staying? November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament voted on the Status Of Forces Agreement (or those who bothered to show up -- many skipped the vote, for the record, 149 MPs voted in favor of the SOFA -- Parliament then had 275 members). As soon as it passed the Iraqi Parliament, the White House finally released a version of the SOFA.

Prior to the SOFA, each year the US and Iraq had to request that the UN mandate be renewed for the US military to legally operate on Iraqi soil. (This is the occupation. No UN mandate provided for the war itself.) The SOFA replaced the UN mandate. The UN mandate covered a variety of countries (including England and Australia) but it also put Iraq in a type of protective receivership. Nouri was prevented from gaining access to certain funds (among other things). This is why Nouri didn't want the UN mandate renewed.

When it was decided that the UN mandate would be ditched, every country that planned to stay in Iraq needed to negotiate their own contract (bilateral agreement) with Iraq. The US went with the SOFA.

The SOFA could run for three years, if neither side exercised their 'out clause.' Article 30 of the SOFA covers this noting in section one: "This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article." Either side could terminate the SOFA at any point but there was no immediate termination. Section 3 of Article 30 covered this: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect."

Lies were told from the beginning. For instance, in an attempt to clamp down on outrage and ensure it passed the Parliament, Nouri al-Maliki insisted the people would get a say in this. In fact, a referendum would be held in July 2009! That referendum never took place. It really didn't matter in terms of ending the SOFA right away. If it had taken place and the vote had been to end the SOFA and Nouri had immediately notified the US that Iraq was breaking the SOFA, the SOFA would end . . . one year after Nouri gave official notification.

The SOFA is a contract. Like any contract, it can expire, be renewed and it can be replaced. Expire? It would run through Decemeber 2011 and not be renewed (or replaced). Replaced? A new bilateral agreement could be agreed to by the US and Iraqi governments. Renewed (or extended)? That's Article 30, Section 2. We have repeatedly opposed efforts for the US Congress to praise the SOFA with meaningless 'honorary' bills. While Iraq's Parliament was able to vote on the SOFA, the US Congress had no say. The Bush White House yet again circumvented the US Constitution -- specifically the section on treaties (treaty clause), Article 22, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires the Senate's advise and consent on all treaties the US enters into with other countries. Barack Obama was 'outraged' that the Senate was being bypassed . . . until he became president-elect. At which point Barack (and Joe Biden) dropped their objection to the US Constitution being circumvented -- this despite Barack being one of the 13 co-sponsors of Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting the SOFA come before the Congress.

After it was a done deal, why did it matter?

Because (A) the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. Violating it is no minor thing. (B) It sets a precedent. (C) The SOFA can be extended.

And how is it extended? Article 30, Section 2, "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."

What does that mean?

It means that the precedent is Nouri's Cabinet and the Parliament have to sign off in Iraq while, in the US, only the White House has to want it.

I don't know how to make that any clearer. Offering that very basic legal analysis was controversial in 2008; however, events have backed up what we've said. It's only the most idiotic that can't grasp it today.

Enter Tom Bowman (NPR). Today on Morning Edition, he reports on one of two plans. But gets many things wrong. First, he's unaware -- or unwilling to pass on --that this is one of two plans currently. What he's covering is plan B for the US administration. It's their back up plan, not their preferred plan.

The preferred plan is extending the SOFA. If that doesn't happen, US forces that remain in Iraq -- and some will though Tom Bowman 'forgets' to include that aspect in his report -- will be under the State Dept's control. In addition, as Bowman report, there will be many contractors brought in (who will also be under the State Dept's control).

Throughout his report, Bowman repeatedly states as fact that all US troops leave Iraq at the end of this year. First off, they don't. Even under plan B (Bowman's topic), some remain in Iraq. (Bowman might need to attend Congressional hearings on this subject. If he had, he'd be well versed in this topic instead of flying blind. Here are two hearing you can refer to, the February 1st Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and the February 3rd Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.) Second, facts are what has happened. US troops have NOT left Iraq. Some may leave at the end of 2011, some may not. And with Iraqi blocs agreeing to discuss the issue, you'd think NPR would be concerned about their reporters getting the facts correct.

Bowman insists, "On the ground, it's the same story. American soldiers and Marines will leave." Marines will leave? What kind of a moron is Tom Bowman?

And it wouldn't be just three or five Marine guards under the Embassy in Baghdad's control. At this late date, you'd think a journalist would know what came before. For example, in February the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a 20 page report entitled [PDF format warning] "IRAQ: THE TRANSITION FROM A MILITARY MISSION TO A CIVILIAN-LED EFFORT." This section should be rather clear:

The State Department is scheduled to assume full security responsibilities in a still dangerous and unpredictable environment and must strike a difficult balance between maintaining a robust presence and providing sufficient level of security. In almost any scenario, the United States will continue to have military personnel stationed at the American embassy in a non-combat role under the Office of Security Cooperation. As in many countries around the world, these troops will be responsible for enhancing the bilateral defense relationship by facilitating security assistance. But the size, scope, and structure of this presence remain undetermined, even at this late date. Perhaps most significantly, it is unclear what kind of security relationship the incoming Iraqi Government would like with the United States.

"In almost any scenario, the United States will continue to have military personnel stationed at the American embassay in a non-combat role under the Office of Security Cooperation. As in many countries around the world, these troops will be responsible for enhancing the bilateral defense relationship by facilitating security assistance." Clear enough? The report offers the following three scenarios: 1) All US troops leave at the end of 2011 ("except for a limited Office of Secuirty Cooperation housed within the embassy") which would require the State Dept scale back their current plans. 2) Many US troops leave at the end of 2011 but the Office of Security Cooperation is expanded with "military forces" who will "provide logistical support for the Iraqi army, shore up administrative gaps within the Ministry of Defense, and prove 'behind the wire' capabilities". 3) A new security agreement is negotiated to allow the US military to continue in Iraq. ("This approach should only be considered if it comes at Iraq's request".)

Jane Arraf counts "about 150 marines" in Iraq after 2011 (if no extension takes place). I have no idea where she's getting her numbers (I'm not questioning her numbers) because when the US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey and various heads of military and Robert Gates have publicly raised the issue to Congress, they haven't had a number. Carl Levin, in his role as Chair of the Armed Services Committee, has repeatedly noted that. Again, I don't question Jane Arraf's numbers but find it interesting that someone in the US military or (more likely) with the US Embassy in Baghdad is providing her with numbers when they've refused to do the same to the House or Senate Armed Services Committee or the Senate Foreign Affairs Committe (the chair of the latter, John Kerry, has also pursued this). Without an answer to that question, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimated the State Dept would need between $25 to 30 billion over the next five years for Iraq alone. Though the State Dept was quite happy to send Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Congress to fight their battle (and he was stupid enough to do it -- no head of any department is caught up enough in their own work to take on the work of another department), as they continued to insist they needed more money. As Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reported last February, the reality for the 2012 budget would be "about $10 billion" on Iraq alone -- as opposed to the $5.2 billion the State Dept tosses around to the press and public.

At a time when -- supposedly -- we're all having to make sacrifices, the State Dept wants a huge increase in funding and can't even provide solid numbers. The Iraq War has been a financial sink hole exactly because it was pay-as-you-go. That started under Bush. Though Barack promised there would be no more supplementals for war spending, they have continued. And when a Department asks for money but will not provide the details of how many US military forces and how many contractors it would cover, you have the recipe for further cost overruns -- at a time when the United States supposedly cannot afford it.

Equally important, Barack was supposed to usher in a new age of transparency in government -- his promise, take it up with him and that's not happening when the State Dept continues to conceal the very basic numbers involved from the citizens of the United States. Not only is there no transparency, there's an attitude of 'we don't answer to the American people.' While some of that attitude -- which needs to be dropped immediately -- can be pinned on the national security types who will be pulling the strings, that's no excuse and the State Dept needs to get its act together and remember it works for the American people.

More true than ever as Behrouz Saba (New American Media) reports today, "Three countries which have received billions in U.S. foreign aid -- Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan -- made the top ten list of the world's failed states, in a survey conducted by Foreign Policy magazine. Moreover, Transparency International reports that Iraq and Afghanistan are just about the most corrupt countries in the world -- edged out only by Myanmar and Somalia -- among the 178 nations rated. Pakistan ranks 143, just slightly better than Haiti and Iran."

Violence never ends in Iraq and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) breaks the news, "Shi'ite militias rather than Sunni Islamist al Qaeda are behind a recent wave of assassinations of Iraqi government, police and military officials in Baghdad, security officials said." al-Salhy counts over 38 deaths since the start of this year that Shi'ite militias have been respondible for. The stated reason for the assassinations? Shi'ite militias fear "a return of Saddam's outlawed Baath party" should the US military pull out at the end of 2011. Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported on a Baghdad home invasion in which "three Shiite family members" were shot dead by assailants in "police uniforms". This has been a repeating incident in and around Baghdad. For a long time, Nouri and company tried to float a story about this mythical uniform making company which did have enough security and kept losing these uniforms. Is the latest allegation by Iraqi officials supposed to explain the attacks by people in police uniforms? There are a lot of questions the story raises. A story blaming Shi'ites -- as opposed to the catch all "al Qaeda in Iraq" -- for the violence and it offers up the motive of 'fear of what happens if the US leaves Iraq and the Baath Party attempts a take over'? It it news or propaganda from officials attempting to frighten Iraq into demanding the US stay?

Nouri al-Maliki wants political blocs to consider the extension of US forces on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011. Zainab Suncor (Al Mada) reported this morning that consideration would most likely take place around June 13th when the Parliament begins its second session. Suncour cites sources "close to the State of Law coalition" wanting US troops to remain in Iraq and the same sources saying this is the wish of most MPs, however, they fear what happens -- Iraqi anger -- if they back the extension they feel is needed. State of Law's Jawad Albz notes talks among the various political blocs and that the US government is applying pressure. Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki called to convene heads of political parties in order to assess their stands over the decision to extend US Forces mandate in Iraq. Al Maliki's call was not well received by Sadr's Front which firmly rejects the extension of US presence in Iraq." David Ali (Al Mada) adds that the Sadrists continue to maintain they will bring back the Mehdi militia and there are rumors that they will be leaving the National Alliance. Over the weekend, Muhammad al-Khaldi (Dar Addustour) reported that State Of Law's Jawad Albz was stating that there are ongoing talks between the US and the political blocs about US troops remaining in Iraq past 2011. Albz insists this is being done in secret and to avoid embarrassment.

In the US, Doug Bandow (Fortune) weighs in, "Washington should close its 86 bases and bring home its 47,000 troops, 63,000 civilian contractors and mountains of military equipment. The Obama administration's attempt to keep U.S. forces in Iraq is further evidence that America has become an empire. Not in the traditional sense of conquering territory. But certainly in the sense of garrisoning foreign lands to extend Washington's influence and creating advanced bases to impose Washington's will." Sunday Faith Abdulsalam (Azzaman) noted how chancy it is that Nouri will remain in power without the US military: "The prime minister understands that the sinking of the ship in the mud that will be left in the aftermath of U.S. troops withdrawal will lead to damages worse than those inflicted on the country by the occupation itself. He now senses that almost everybody is his enemy, even those within his closest circle working for him under the political or factional banner. This is the kind of characteristic that breeds dictators in the course of time." The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Maliki is terrified and realizes that he is about to disappear - this can be sensed from the tone of his voice and the expression on his face and the same can be sensed and seen of the of his cronies in the so called government. After his departure there will be no more lies!" An editorial in the Pensacola News Journal declared, "New reports say Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is 'open' to the possibility that U.S. combat troops will remain in Iraq beyond the scheduled Dec. 31 departure date. Big surprise. If he can get U.S. taxpayers to keep shelling out billions of dollars to support his efforts to consolidate power, I'm sure he'll count it as a feather in his hat."

While US forces right now are supposed to be leaving Iraq December 31, 2011, a number of them are being deployed on year long and "about a year" tours of duty in Iraq. For example, Scott Wasserman (Twin Cities Fox 9 -- link has text and video) reports, "It's the second largest deployment of Minnesota Guard members since World War II. Over 2,400 men and women are preparing to leave home so they can serve in Iraq." He notes that they will be deployed in Iraq for "about a year." ABC Newspapers note, "A total of 460 soldiers will be leaving Minnesota May 22 for training before departing for the Middle East." Last Thursday, Corey Dickstein (Savannah Morning News) reported, "Fort Stewart officials announced Thursday that the 3rd Infantry Division's Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion will be deployed to Iraq in late fall to support Operation New Dawn." Lot of people headed to Iraq for "about 12" months . . . when there are less than seven months left in the year.

Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left eight people injured (three are bodyguards of the Baghdad Provincial Council's Kamel al-Zaidi), another Baghdad roadside bombing injured three people, a third injured five, 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad, a coprse was discovered in Kirkuk, a Mosul sticky bomb on a judge's car was successfully dismantled, and, dropping back to Sunday for the rest, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Interior Ministry worker, 1 person was shot dead in Baghdad by assailants on motorcycles, 1 soldier was shot dead in Mosul and a child left injured and "the son of a civilian contractor" was shot dead in a separate Mosul shooting. Aswat al-Iraq reports a bombing at the Fadhila Party Headquarters "north of Hilla" which left 2 people dead, a 1 "young man" was shot dead in Mosul and 4 children -- ages eight to twelve -- died in Diwaniya today while playing in a military camp with "unexploded shells." And in Kirkuk, Ashur Jacob's corpse was found, the "head chopped off," approximately a week after the Iraqi Christian was kidnapped and his family told they needed to raise a $100,000 ransom. AFP reports that Ashur Issa Yaqub was 29-years-old and that they were asking $100,000 in a country where the "average daily wage for a construction worker averages to around 25,000 Iraqi dinars ($21)." On the issue of corpses, the Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "It has just been announced that a new Mass Grave has been discovered in Fallujah in the Al Ma'adheedi - 20 bodies defaced by acid! What a mess and what a democracy and liberation! what hell for their families and for the Iraqi People. Dear God I pray vengeance is wroght upon all who wrecked this havoc on Iraq." And the Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "‎2 days ago I heard from someone quite close to the powers that be that daily there are at least 50 bodies that are found in the streets - this is what is known, but I wonder what the real figure is - where are the legally responsible occupation forces???? Do they think that they will get away with all of this? They brought us scum who are not Iraqis - just in case they did not know - where is the UN? Where are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch???? When are the Americans going to allow them to speak up?????"